| Revision as of 02:51, 9 June 2006 editAñoranza (talk | contribs)1,398 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:26, 9 June 2006 edit undoAñoranza (talk | contribs)1,398 edits →JDoorjam who does not know how to count to high numbers temporarily had blocked me erroneouslyNext edit → | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| Do not remove warnings from your talk page. I have struck through the portion to which you object. ]]] ] 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | Do not remove warnings from your talk page. I have struck through the portion to which you object. ]]] ] 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Your behaviour is unacceptable. ] 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | :Your behaviour is unacceptable. ] 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| {{unblock|it is not incivil nor a personal attack to complain about unacceptable behaviour, there is not a single evidence of NPOV violation, and I neither broke the censored violation nor did I break 3rr, I was unblocked as the admin had counted wrongly}} | |||
Revision as of 03:26, 9 June 2006
You're definitely right ...
... but I'll keep the blocking for a week, since some es: administrators are suffering blackmail and other vandalism from the Arcor network. I definitely agree with you in this measure being an overkill, but I don't know what other thing to do. Sorry --Ecemaml 08:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- How can someone blackmail you via internet? There are strange people around... Añoranza 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
TfD &CfD
Hello, Añoranza. Please complete the TfD and CfD procedures for the "War on Terror" items. (See Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#How to list templates for deletion and Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion#How to use this page.) If the proper subsections do not exist (I can't find them. A link should be in the CfD/TfD notice.), no one can make comments nor vote on whatever changes you wish to implement. Just an FYI. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 08:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I've fixed the problems. -- PFHLai 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: page protections
The page protection has nothing to do with any edit war. I didn't even know there was one. It is due to ongoing vandalism by an abusive user who has created several hundred throwaway accounts with which he posts an administrator's personal information into articles. After going through the trouble of removing those edits from the page history, it would be wise to semi-protect the page for at least a while, if only to delay having to repeat the process. — May. 7, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Ah, ok. Strange what some people use their time for. Can't you block the IP range? Añoranza 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The Opera web browser
You've asked why I prefer opera. You might be a Firefox fanatic, but I am not. I've used Opera before there was a Firefox. Firefox's font rendering looks bad on my laptop with a 16:9 monitor aspect ratio. Opera does mouse gestures, has more features by default, and is more polished than firefox in its current state. I don't hate firefox, I put it on my parents computer but Opera meets my needs better than firefox. BigE1977 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
About Iraq War
Honestly I don't think its worth your time to go through Zero's entire intro and deal with everything piece by piece. I would just revert it back to the version it was before he started this whole mess. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your comments have been noted. Trying to find a middleground is usually better then advocating someone just discard someone elses work. Today it seems me and Anoranza came to a middleground thanks to some discussion instead of constant revert war. Diplomacy usually wins over brute tactics, you should be more open to it. --Zer0faults 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
War on Terrorism
I didnt take part in the debate to delete the category war on terrorism. I think the debate was politically motivated. The term is a policy of the current administration of the US govenrement that has had both negative and positive consequences. If you dont like the consequencesyou should add that to the discussion rather than deleting the category which will be usefuil for future research into the effectiveness of hte War on Terror.Mrdthree 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was decided the category should be deleted. You can challenge that decision but you cannot restart the category against consensus. It generally does not help to accuse others of hidden agendas. Añoranza 10:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Iraq War 2nd Paragraph
TO keep things civil I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article in question Talk:Iraq_War#Anoranza_Please_Read. If you can respond so we can make sure you no longer feel like your information is left out I think it would contribute greatly to the 2nd paragraph. Thank you --Zer0faults 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are happy with the intro as it stands, I am as well. Nice to finally reach a concensus as its mainly your edits. Cheers for diplomacy --Zer0faults 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The war is most notable for
- a UN Security Council veto power lying to the Council
- spying on other members
- breaking the UN Charter with a war of aggression
- in spite of the biggest ever worldwide protests
- admitting that as holder of the biggest arsenal of WMD in the world WMD were used as the primary claimed reason just to appease the others
- inspiring the most widespread terrorism ever.
This should be reflected in the intro. Añoranza 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Replied in appropriate location. All further replies will be there. --Zer0faults 16:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Odious
Thought you might want to see this.
Nomen Nescio 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
ICC
Please could you comment about your edit on the International Criminal Court page, as per my talk page note. Thanks AndrewRT 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Panama Deception
Fixed your link on the above page, when using IMDB tag, you do not put the tt from the beginning of the title id. For example, your movie was "tt0105089", you remove the "tt" and are left with "0105089" as your ID. --zero faults 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
JDoorjam who does not know how to count to high numbers temporarily had blocked me erroneously
You have been temporarily blocked for violating the three-revert rule at the article about Dick Cheney. After the block expires, please refrain from engaging in edit warring. I recommend you use the talk pages of articles you are editing if the edits are contentious. JDoorjam Talk 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, a warning is in place before a block, second, you should learn to count before blocking others, third, it is obscene to block others you are in a conflict with. Añoranza 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, that was only three. I'll unblock you momentarily. With that said, clearly your campaign of systematically changing military campaign names is largely contested by other editors. Use the talk pages and build consensus before continuing in this vein, or I'll block you again for disruption. JDoorjam Talk 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am still blocked: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Añoranza". The reason given for Añoranza's block is: "3RR". Your IP address is 88.73.92.206.
- And thanks for saying sorry with a threat. Your behaviour is unacceptable. Añoranza 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove warnings from your talk page. I have struck through the portion to which you object. JDoorjam Talk 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your behaviour is unacceptable. Añoranza 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Añoranza (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
it is not incivil nor a personal attack to complain about unacceptable behaviour, there is not a single evidence of NPOV violation, and I neither broke the censored violation nor did I break 3rr, I was unblocked as the admin had counted wronglyNotes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=it is not incivil nor a personal attack to complain about unacceptable behaviour, there is not a single evidence of NPOV violation, and I neither broke the censored violation nor did I break 3rr, I was unblocked as the admin had counted wrongly |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=it is not incivil nor a personal attack to complain about unacceptable behaviour, there is not a single evidence of NPOV violation, and I neither broke the censored violation nor did I break 3rr, I was unblocked as the admin had counted wrongly |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=it is not incivil nor a personal attack to complain about unacceptable behaviour, there is not a single evidence of NPOV violation, and I neither broke the censored violation nor did I break 3rr, I was unblocked as the admin had counted wrongly |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}